-s. vs. (-)t-

[Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen]

On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Glen Gordon wrote:

> MIGUEL:
[...]
> To account for the nominative and accusative forms, these case endings
> must be viewed as older than the rest of the declension that we now
> find in IE.

That's what I've been saying all along, so I cannot disagree.

[...]
> Revised rule:       Pre-IE **-Vt > IE *Vs
>                 but Pre-IE **-Ct > IE *Ct
>
> Does that explain everything now? Gettin' out the check list...
> 2nd person *-s? Check.

No: We also have 2sg *-s after consonants!

> Relationship of substantive/aorist? Check.

Incomprehensible to me; what are you talking about?

> The
> infamous *t/*s alternation. Check.

That is correct in so far as the alternant /s/ (when there _is_ an
alternation) is restricted to word-final position and to the position at
the old boundary before the added "wak-case ending". However, we also
have /s/ before some stem-elaborating suffixes, certainly the fem. ptc. in
*-us-iH2.

> Examples where final **t doesn't
> become *s? Maybe.

Impossible: We cannot dispense with an element /t/ that never becomes /s/.

Jens